This is a new one. I have corrected it in advaned.
How do you guys like it?
The arguer expresses his opinion about whether some states in US should legislate to restrict the usage of cell phones while driving based on some evidence. To back up his ideal, the arguer points out that most people do not make mistake while using cell phones. In addition, he mentions that not only using cell phones but also other activities such as listening to the radio or disciplining children that cause car accidents. Yet, the arguer believes that there is no need to make legislations to forbid using cell phones, which will restrain the freedom of using cell phones. The writer’s point of view seems verisimilar at first glance, but it is questionable after peruse the argument one again.
The arguer’s viewpoint about most people do not cause problem with cell phones when driving is unfounded. First, how does the arguer get this conclusion? Are there any institutes shows their searches on this problem? No, the writer does not provide the source of this result; probably it is the writer’s own inference. Even though the arguer’s ideal that only some people with cell phones make mistakes while driving is right, it is still a big deal. As drives all driving fast on the highway, even a little mistake may cause some serious problems that kill many people, especially during falling weather like rainy or windy. Any of these possibilities, if true, would show that the arguer’s first argument is wrong.
At the second step, the writer rests on a gratuitous assumption that there are other mistakes like listening to the radio or disciplining children that lead to car accidents. The writer makes a awkward logical error here; actually, these activities would also cause problems when driving, but this does not means that we should let these accidents caused by answering cell phones go. For one thing, listening to the radio or other activities has less ability to draw drivers’ attention to bring about some disastrous consequences comparing to answering cell phones. For other thing, even other activities have the same effect as comparison to using cell phones that does not mean that the legislature should not create new laws to limit the cell phones. They just have to add other dangerous activities into these laws.
In the third place, the argument commits a logic fallacy of “no need to past laws and no need to restrict people’s freedom to use this device”. The statement makes it clear that new laws just forbid using cell phones while driving. When someone wants to use cell phone, he can poll over or drive into a motel. Moreover, no evidence is cited to support the assumption that there is a causal-effect relationship between the limitation of using cell phones on road and the confinement of people’s freedom of using cell phone when needed.
In the end, the argument is unconvincing based on these analyses above. The arguer should give some study showing that few people makes mistake when calling to convince readers. Furthermore, Some evidence must be given to prove his idea about these lows actually limit the emergent use.
TOEFL listening lectures: A university lecture by a professor of History (2)